# Rodriguez v. Smith

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · September 4, 2008 · 541 F.3d 1180

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9630397

## Case

- **Full name:** Jose RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Dennis SMITH, Warden, Respondent-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 4, 2008
- **Citations:** 541 F.3d 1180; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18918; 2008 WL 4070264
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Rymer
- **Judges:** Procter Hug, Jr., Pamela Ann Rymer, and Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges
- **Cited by:** 31 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9630397

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that 16 “[b]ecause the BOP regulations categorically exclude [RRC] placement of inmates with more 17 than ten percent of their sentences remaining, they necessarily fail to apply the mandatory factors 18 listed in § 3621(b) to those inmates.”
- holding that failure to consider the five statutory factors when considering 20 eligibility for placement in or transfer to an RRC violates § 3621(b)
- recognizing that § 3621(b) gives the BOP authority and discretion to allow inmate to serve all or part of sentence in community confinement
- affirming 21 district court's grant of habeas relief where petitioner brought habeas corpus petition to 22 compel BOP to immediately consider transferring him to an RRC pursuant to the factors set forth 23 in 18 U.S.C. § 3621 (b)
- affirming grant of habeas relief where petitioner brought § 2241 petition alleging 18 that BOP was applying an improper categorical exclusion in regard to RCC placement

## Opinion text

RYMER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
While I understand joining the parade of courts to decide this issue, I would reverse for the reasons stated in Muniz v. Sabol, 517 F.3d 29, 31 (1st Cir.2008), and in Judge Raggi’s well-reasoned dissent in Levine v. Apker, 455 F.3d 71, 87 (2d Cir.2006).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9630397. Public record. Not legal advice.